User Controls
Posts That Were Thanked by Xlite
-
2018-03-08 at 9:33 AM UTC in Alright, so tell me about the jedis.According to this chart, which I have no reason to distrust, jedis are the worst employees.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-08 at 4:54 AM UTC in -SpectraL is a phony: definitive proof. Link him to this thread whenever he spouts his shit.
Originally posted by -SpectraL Truth be told, that is not correct information. Proof of this fact is found by examining the account registration dates of the oldest accounts in the web version of Totse's memberlist. Totse was NOT available on the web in 1997 at all. The final decision to discontinue the TelNet version of Totse was made in or around 1998, but the move itself only happened in 2001.
By this logic, Niggas In Space started in 2016 because of the sign-up dates on profiles.
https://niggasin.space/user/1
You really are a conniving, psychotic weasel. Truth be told.
HEY LOOK GUYS
http://web.archive.org/web/19981212033530/http://www.totse.com:80/
TOTSE FROM 1998. BUT ACCORDING TO SPECTRAL IT ONLY BEGAN ON THE WEB IN 2001.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-07 at 1:39 PM UTC in Niggas, stand with me in protest of these word enhancements!lanny you liberal fuck! you've gone mad with word enhancementing power!The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-07 at 7:58 AM UTC in Karen is the female equivalent of David Duchovny
Fingers crossed
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-04 at 1:49 AM UTC in Can we just acknowledge the predictability of these retards?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-04 at 1:36 AM UTC in Can we just acknowledge the predictability of these retards?>Can we just acknowledge the predictability of these retards?
I hate women so much. -
2018-03-03 at 8:20 PM UTC in Do you trust overly social people? (explained more inside)
Originally posted by Issue313 Left and right are outdated distinctions.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
SOURCES OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS
45. Any of the foregoing symptoms can occur in any society, but in modern industrial society they are present on a massive scale. We aren’t the first to mention that the world today seems to be going crazy. This sort of thing is not normal for human societies. There is good reason to believe that primitive man suffered from less stress and frustration and was better satisfied with his way of life than modern man is. It is true that not all was sweetness and light in primitive societies. Abuse of women was common among the Australian aborigines, transexuality was fairly common among some of the American Indian tribes. But it does appear that GENERALLY SPEAKING the kinds of problems that we have listed in the preceding paragraph were far less common among primitive peoples than they are in modern society.
46. We attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that that society requires people to live under conditions radically different from those under which the human race evolved and to behave in ways that conflict with the patterns of behavior that the human race developed while living under the earlier conditions. It is clear from what we have already written that we consider lack of opportunity to properly experience the power process as the most important of the abnormal conditions to which modern society subjects people. But it is not the only one. Before dealing with disruption of the power process as a source of social problems we will discuss some of the other sources.
47. Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.
48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people’s hands. For example, a variety of noise- making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)
49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable framework.
50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
51. The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual’s loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.
52. Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his co- religionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is “nepotism” or “discrimination,” both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system. [7]
53. Crowding, rapid change and the breakdown of communities have been widely recognized as sources of social problems. But we do not believe they are enough to account for the extent of the problems that are seen today.
54. A few pre-industrial cities were very large and crowded, yet their inhabitants do not seem to have suffered from psychological problems to the same extent as modern man. In America today there still are uncrowded rural areas, and we find there the same problems as in urban areas, though the problems tend to be less acute in the rural areas. Thus crowding does not seem to be the decisive factor.
55. On the growing edge of the American frontier during the 19th century, the mobility of the population probably broke down extended families and small-scale social groups to at least the same extent as these are broken down today. In fact, many nuclear families lived by choice in such isolation, having no neighbors within several miles, that they belonged to no community at all, yet they do not seem to have developed problems as a result.
56. Furthermore, change in American frontier society was very rapid and deep. A man might be born and raised in a log cabin, outside the reach of law and order and fed largely on wild meat; and by the time he arrived at old age he might be working at a regular job and living in an ordered community with effective law enforcement. This was a deeper change than that which typically occurs in the life of a modern individual, yet it does not seem to have led to psychological problems. In fact, 19th century American society had an optimistic and self-confident tone, quite unlike that of today’s society. [8]
57. The difference, we argue, is that modern man has the sense (largely justified) that change is IMPOSED on him, whereas the 19th century frontiersman had the sense (also largely justified) that he created change himself, by his own choice. Thus a pioneer settled on a piece of land of his own choosing and made it into a farm through his own effort. In those days an entire county might have only a couple of hundred inhabitants and was a far more isolated and autonomous entity than a modern county is. Hence the pioneer farmer participated as a member of a relatively small group in the creation of a new, ordered community. One may well question whether the creation of this community was an improvement, but at any rate it satisfied the pioneer’s need for the power process.
58. It would be possible to give other examples of societies in which there has been rapid change and/or lack of close community ties without the kind of massive behavioral aberration that is seen in today’s industrial society. We contend that the most important cause of social and psychological problems in modern society is the fact that people have insufficient opportunity to go through the power process in a normal way. We don’t mean to say that modern society is the only one in which the power process has been disrupted. Probably most if not all civilized societies have interfered with the power process to a greater or lesser extent. But in modern industrial society the problem has become particularly acute. Leftism, at least in its recent (mid- to late-20th century) form, is in part a symptom of deprivation with respect to the power process.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-03 at 8:09 AM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-02 at 8:31 AM UTC in Conflict Shitpile III - Diplomacy Defunct Edition
Originally posted by aldra This would be the time to strike if the US is afraid of having a huge amount of their military power nullified.
There'll probably be parties in Washington at this news. This means new programs, moar money.
The great thing about ABM is that it's impossible. Fights that can never be won are the best kind - war against drugs, race against racism, etc.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-26 at 12:02 AM UTC in For realz, how the fuck do creatures like this exist?
Originally posted by -SpectraL Well, of course it's not false. Creation has a single premise: that an intelligent being designed and created the whole rigmarole.
You misunderstand occam's razor entirely (although to be fair I think most people who use the term don't know what it actually is). It's not "count up theory 1's assumptions and then count theory 2's assumptions and the lower number wins". If that were the case I could say "Lanny holds the highest office in the US government, the highest office in the US government is the presidency, QED Lanny is the president" and this line of reasoning contains exactly one assumption. It does not, however, find justification under occam's razor.Evolution depends on literally thousands, if not millions, of different premises, all of which would have to be correct to produce the desired outcome.
Evolution depends on exactly zero premises in the standard scientific framework. We can observe evolution in lifeforms in human scales of time. Antibiotic resistance is a form a evolution. We can induce evolution in many simple life forms and observe it happening. Occam's razor has nothing to say about simple observations, it deals in explanations.
Now if you want to talk about evolution from a common ancestor as a candidate explanation for observable biological speciation then we do need some assumptions, like that a process that's observable in life today was historically in force and that homology signals common ancestry (this is really the point you should be attacking but your scientific literacy is too poor to allow you to). In any case, while there may be numerically a few (a few, not thousands or millions) more assumptions involved the total "assumptiveness" of them is quite a bit less than your begging the question on an intelligent creator
P.S. The only reason I'm responding to you is I took an adderall and am now compelled to engage in internet debates with idiots, even though I know the exact and total futility of the activity. -
2018-02-22 at 9:43 PM UTC in Give me ideas. If they're good, I'll draw them in MS paint.
-
2018-02-19 at 11:22 PM UTC in What's your IQ?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-02-19 at 3:06 PM UTC in Meeting my gf's dadjust remember Bill Krozbyy baby, they know you're poking their daughter.
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-19 at 9:47 AM UTC in What's your IQ?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-02-19 at 8:55 AM UTC in Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while alivethis is a rainbow thread faggots, be sure to keep on topic or elseThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-02-19 at 2:52 AM UTC in Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while alive
Originally posted by Daily I don't have any beef - this whole thing is just down to semantics. I choose to use the label "race" as a quick indicator to refer to these genetic and phenotypic group differences. If you don't want to, that's cool with me.
I don't have a problem with that. I just think race is a scientifically meaningless concept.PS. linking to articles behind a paywall is not cool.
Sorry, I forgot you were poorThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-19 at 12:12 AM UTC in Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while alive
Originally posted by Jeremus TL;Dr: you are not drawing the line that connects the reality that there are genetic similarities within populations, to the justifiability or usefulness of classifications like negroid, Caucasoid, mongoloid, australoid, graboid etc.
As for phenotypical realities, tell me about them. I can some very superficial ones like skin colour, but even those are on a spectrum and you need to define very clearly where to draw the line. If you're going to go for something like facial features, I can point out that the facial features of two individuals within one of these "races" can be just as different as those from another "race".
Don't make broad declarations about "phenotypical realities", tell me what these realities are that you believe in, and how they clearly correlate to these groupings.
I know we're all at least 30% trolls here, but please don't be disingenuous by saying I'm building a strawman and then accusing me of caring about 19th century classifications like caucasoid, negroid, fucktoid, etc. Stop asking me "where do you draw the line" when I specifically said two posts ago that the lines between ethnic populations are blurry and can be divided into many different sub-divisions which I already agreed are a product of the human brain.
Can you please tell me where the red ends and where the red begins? What about the blue? What about the green? Where do you draw the line? I sure don't know, but that does not deny the fact that we can look at most of the shades of each colour and understand using nothing but sight which colour is which in the general sense. Just because we do not know where to draw the line does not mean that individual colours cannot be recognised. We look at the colour of blood, or the colour of a strawberry, or the colour of a persian rug and we understand on a general level that each of these things are red.
The same thing can be applied to the global human population. Yes, there has been immigration, yes there has been race-mixing, yes there has been plastic surgery, but the average person can discern between different ethnic populations using nothing but phenotypic analysis (in this case, simply looking at somebody).
Other than skin colour, there are measurable differences in the mean dimensions of the skull and facial features. These include the nasal index, prognathism, shape of eye orbits, surface area of the lips and eyebrow ridges, among others. When we do nothing but look at an individual, our brains instantly recognise these differences even though we don't take out a tape measurer and compare the differences in millimeters of each aspect of the skull. Our brains are innately wired to recognise these differences in individuals. This is why, for example, we can instantly recognise an albino - there is a fuck up between the genes responsible for their skin colour and the genes responsible for the rest of their phenotype. This is also why you can look at female twins and find one more attractive than the other even though there would probably be a 0% chance of you coherently explaining why.
What you are doing, and what most people do when discussing race, is hone in on the exceptions while ignoring the general. If you live in a homogeneous town in Poland for 6 months, and then live in a homogeneous town in Denmark for 6 months, you will be exposed to both phenotypes long enough to be able to tell the differences between the two ethnic populations with a more than random accuracy by only looking at their face. This is meaningful because both populations, in the social sphere, will be classified as "Caucasian" or "Europid" or "White" and yet a phenotypic difference will still exist among the sub-divisions of this one genetic cluster. This relates to my point earlier, where I said you can further divide these sub-divisions.
Apply this to between populations rather than within populations and the phenotypic differences will be even greater - unsurprisingly so, because the further away the genetic clusters are away from each other, the more different their phenotype. Yes, I get it, there are Persians who look Afghan and there are Persians who look Greek. However, Persian, just like "White" or "Black" are socially constructed ever-evolving terms but this does not mean that phenotypic differences are arbitrary and random.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-02-15 at 10:56 PM UTC in Policeman beheaded and son has heart/skin removed while aliveThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-02-15 at 11:09 AM UTC in Abandoned Neutrons ...In Space!So if people like this then I'll do a couple more, but if you think it's shit then I won't.
Abandoned Neutrons ...In Space! -
2018-02-13 at 2:34 AM UTC in Deepfakes are legitimately scary as fuckYou can basically generate resistive porn of literally almost any human being alive. The software is buggy but I have no doubt it can be fixed, and with some pro retouching, it could literally become indistinguishable from a real video. Videographic and photographic evidence is basically dead imo, there's no going back, we can't trust video any more.
